Definitely, iOS is the CocoaTouch OS, which has access to the app store (iPod, iPad, iPhone). That's the important characteristic, not what goes under "the hood". For all we know, all of iDevices, including macs, sport some sort of OS X underneath.

So you see, it's just a semantical mistake to say that the iTV will sport that thing to which we call "iOS".

Well, if Apple releases an ARM based AppleTV, and says it runs iOS, then that's what it runs, even if it doesn't support a touch interface. Basically, iOS is whatever they say it is. (And there's no requirement that touch and access to the app store go together. Nor any requirement that a particular device that uses the app store be able to run all app store apps -- e.g., an iPhone doesn't run iPad apps.)

I think your image showcases what I think is wrong with assuming this is the next iPod to replace the current Nano. If it was to replace the current Nano, why not make it rectangular with a rectangular display so it can offer the same or better image size for video playback. If the goal is to make the display a touchscreen then why make it square?

That was sort of the point... seeing the actual 1:1 comparison (I printed it out, too), the Nano just doesn't seem to evolve to that tiny thing... Although the size of the screen isn't the problem, but trying to use it as the main input method (touchscreen) just won't work.

but the argument is, when did the shuffle ever have a screen? They've been removing buttons (see Shuffle 3rd Gen), and have never included the 30-pin port.

So, its looking like some hybrid, and could potentially merge the two lines of iPods

but the argument is, when did the shuffle ever have a screen? They've been removing buttons (see Shuffle 3rd Gen), and have never included the 30-pin port.

So, its looking like some hybrid, and could potentially merge the two lines of iPods

They did remove physical buttons from the last Shuffle, but how well did that model sell? It seems to me that it’s the most unloved of the Shuffle designs, though I’m a fan of using my headphone controls on my iPhone and prefer this method when running.

They also made the device more complex by adding a playlist option to the device and a higher capacity which song sizes really aren’t increasing at the same rate from when the 512MB Shuffle was first introduced so it’s possible that they felt they needed to take a step back in order to take two steps forward with a Shuffle with a display for basic navigation.

As for the Dock Connector, that is another good point, but notice the Shuffle also has a clip, which seems to be indicated by the rubber casing. It’s possible the 3.5mm headphone jack data stream is simply too slow for fast data transfers or too low power to charge what would be a larger battery. Also, maybe they needed some sort of on-screen display for built-in Nike+ receiver, something I’ve been wanting for a couple years now, though SpamSandwich had a similar yet different wireless protocol theory, that it might be a larger Shuffle for bluetooth components and subsequent battery for BT headphones.

Of the two, I’d think going for a larger SuperShuffle makes more sense than a smaller Nano. Apple likes to go smaller, but they typically only do it when they can at least keep the current usability and features in tacked. This “NinnyNano” doesn’t maintain the display size for viewing or the ability to use it as a video camera.

I can see this being a *new* iPod in the line up with hybrid-features, but not a merger of the two lines, but I favor it being on the Shuffle side of things.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

Well, if Apple releases an ARM based AppleTV, and says it runs iOS, then that's what it runs, even if it doesn't support a touch interface. Basically, iOS is whatever they say it is. (And there's no requirement that touch and access to the app store go together. Nor any requirement that a particular device that uses the app store be able to run all app store apps -- e.g., an iPhone doesn't run iPad apps.)

Yeah, sure, and if they ship an iPod shuffle and call it an "iPhone" I guess they are entitled to do so too, since it's their company... I mean wtf?

Then you say something irrelevant about the store and touch. Well, sure, they can expand the app store to include "iTV apps". Why not. But when I wrote what I wrote, I was speaking about the apps that already exist, and all of them run on the same UI, despite some fragmentation due to hardware differences. Mostly all of the apps run in the iPad, for example, except the ones where you need a mic or a camera. None of the 200k + apps could run in the iTV.

So it would be a completely different device with a completely separate developer's effort, with a completely different UI, with a completely different strategy. So whatever, dude, call it "iOS", because you like to confuse these things. I will call it "iTV OS" until further notice.

Yeah, sure, and if they ship an iPod shuffle and call it an "iPhone" I guess they are entitled to do so too, since it's their company... I mean wtf?

Then you say something irrelevant about the store and touch. Well, sure, they can expand the app store to include "iTV apps". Why not. But when I wrote what I wrote, I was speaking about the apps that already exist, and all of them run on the same UI, despite some fragmentation due to hardware differences. Mostly all of the apps run in the iPad, for example, except the ones where you need a mic or a camera. None of the 200k + apps could run in the iTV.

So it would be a completely different device with a completely separate developer's effort, with a completely different UI, with a completely different strategy. So whatever, dude, call it "iOS", because you like to confuse these things. I will call it "iTV OS" until further notice.

Complete lack of vision and imagination. iTV will run iOS at 1024 x 768 and the remote will be a mix of wii controller and touch. Use your iPhone/ipad/ipod touch or a separately available remote. It will run all apps and stream media from your network and the internet. Why do people find it so hard to understand this very basic set up?

Complete lack of vision and imagination. iTV will run iOS at 1024 x 768 and the remote will be a mix of wii controller and touch. Use your iPhone/ipad/ipod touch or a separately available remote. It will run all apps and stream media from your network and the internet. Why do people find it so hard to understand this very basic set up?

Well, if what you mean by "imagination" is defined by the sprouting of complete nonsense that you display here, I take that as a compliment, thank you very much.

What I find it "so hard" to understand, is that Apple never does the shitty design flaw that you are advocating here, namely, to support an "almost but not quite the same" OS in a different UI, supporting third party apps that will work "almost like but not quite the same as in" the iPad or the iPhone. So yes, I do have a hard time when I try to think as absurdly as you are doing, while pontificating about one's intelligence. It's simply incompatible.

Yeah, just like the iPad. For apps likely to run on AppleTV, especially media apps, it really wouldn't be a big deal to adapt the UI

What a stupid thing to say. The iPad is "just a giant iPod Touch". Your failure to grasp this simple concept and how this completely differentiates the iTV from the other "iDevices" just renders you completely incompetent to continue this discussion.

Seeing how the Apple TV runs a special customized version of OS X, (as described in someone else's words) The new "iTV" should run a customized version of iOS. Maybe one with no touch interface, or a different UI. This would be interesting to see when it come out.

But this would miss out on the "eyes free" and car safe click wheel, which is half the reason to buy a nano now. Anybody ever try to pause a podcast on a touch when the phone rings? You either unplug it or you have to slide, click, click, click (heaven forbid you're accidentally on another app).

If the phone rings whilst driving ignore it. Even with hands free kits talking on the phone is still a distraction and you are still more likely to be in an accident.

I was actually wondering if maybe Apple will release this and kill off the shuffle (or the nano) and just have one tiny iPod.

I bet this is a replacement for both the shuffle and the nano.
Apple has too many products in the lineup. (shuffle, nano, classic, touch, iPhone, iPad)
Time to consolidate.
Keep this new device under $100 (say $79) it would be a winner.

Seeing how the Apple TV runs a special customized version of OS X, (as described in someone else's words) The new "iTV" should run a customized version of iOS. Maybe one with no touch interface, or a different UI. This would be interesting to see when it come out.

The current AppleTV I pretty much Mac OS X "Tiger" v10.4 with the Mac OS X Aqua UI replaced with the BackRow UI with IR for input instead of a keyboard and mouse. Whar LuisDiaz doesn't understand is that the OS is not the UI, that Apple can replace the CocoaTouch UI in iOS with a new 10-foot UI and it would still have the same lightweight version of OS X that was designed to run on ARM processors.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

My wild guess is that the small square screen is for the new shuffle. The current shuffle isn't selling well, and Apple might want to turn it into a fancier device with a touch-screen to boost sales. It would show a "virtual click wheel" that appears when the user touches the screen without swiping.

So what about the nano? My wild guess is that it will get a bigger touch-sensitive screen, that the separate click wheel will be replaced by the same "virtual click wheel" used on the shuffle, and that the screen will get larger. Both the new shuffle and nano would run an improved version of iPod OS, not iOS. (Maybe the nano could get iOS next year...)

The iPod touch will have almost all the features of the iPhone 4, except for the phone itself, and maybe no camera flash and a different case design. That means it'll get FaceTime and the A4 processor.

I bet this is a replacement for both the shuffle and the nano.
Apple has too many products in the lineup. (shuffle, nano, classic, touch, iPhone, iPad)
Time to consolidate.
Keep this new device under $100 (say $79) it would be a winner.

They are already saturated, if they limit their product lineup then they will limit their market potential even more. Typically we see a shrinking of a product line when a impact is restructuring due to negative profit.

For those reasons I'd think it's an additional iPod over a deduction of iPods in the line up. If they remove the Classic then it could maintain the same number, though I think the Classic will likely have life left at a reduced price after they stopping up the capacity of the 1.8" HDD platters it uses.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

The current AppleTV I pretty much Mac OS X "Tiger" v10.4 with the Mac OS X Aqua UI replaced with the BackRow UI with IR for input instead of a keyboard and mouse. Whar LuisDiaz doesn't understand is that the OS is not the UI, that Apple can replace the CocoaTouch UI in iOS with a new 10-foot UI and it would still have the same lightweight version of OS X that was designed to run on ARM processors.

Agreed. iOS is basically a stripped down OSX, in 07 Jobs even stated the iPhone runs OSX. Essentially they can put any new UI on top of the Core OS and Core Services and they are good to go. You won't even know that it's iOS inside there.

Well, if what you mean by "imagination" is defined by the sprouting of complete nonsense that you display here, I take that as a compliment, thank you very much.

What I find it "so hard" to understand, is that Apple never does the shitty design flaw that you are advocating here, namely, to support an "almost but not quite the same" OS in a different UI, supporting third party apps that will work "almost like but not quite the same as in" the iPad or the iPhone. So yes, I do have a hard time when I try to think as absurdly as you are doing, while pontificating about one's intelligence. It's simply incompatible.

you're either stupid, blinded by arrogance, have no technical understanding of scaling interfaces. Or you're a complete dick. You decide.

I bet this is a replacement for both the shuffle and the nano.
Apple has too many products in the lineup. (shuffle, nano, classic, touch, iPhone, iPad)
Time to consolidate.
Keep this new device under $100 (say $79) it would be a winner.

A lot of runners rely on the nano with nike+. I have 1k miles on my 2gen nano, ready for a new one.

If it is that small, and controlled with touch screen, I have a few issues

A) Have you ever tried to control a sweaty touch screen??? It doesn't work. Most of the time it goes other places. If runners are trying to adjust this during a run, it is going to be all sorts of fail.

B) If it is the small square form factor, how do you use touch control and hold it in one hand at the same time. That is what was great about the click wheel, easy to control, very responsive, easy to grasp.

Quote:

The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

What a stupid thing to say. The iPad is "just a giant iPod Touch". Your failure to grasp this simple concept and how this completely differentiates the iTV from the other "iDevices" just renders you completely incompetent to continue this discussion.

One has to wonder if people who still say, "The iPad is 'just a giant iPod Touch'" have actually ever held one in their hands. It so obviously is not, and iPhone/iPod Touch apps pretty much suck running on the iPad. The size of the screen completely alters the user experience, and what makes a well designed app. The changes to go from an iPad app to an Apple TV iOS app, are probably minimal, with the iPad UI being something that would probably almost work as a 10' UI. Some things will have to change, since input methods will be different, but the differences are probably less than those required to go from iPhone UI to iPad UI.

They did remove physical buttons from the last Shuffle, but how well did that model sell? It seems to me that its the most unloved of the Shuffle designs, though Im a fan of using my headphone controls on my iPhone and prefer this method when running.

They also made the device more complex by adding a playlist option to the device and a higher capacity which song sizes really arent increasing at the same rate from when the 512MB Shuffle was first introduced so its possible that they felt they needed to take a step back in order to take two steps forward with a Shuffle with a display for basic navigation.

As for the Dock Connector, that is another good point, but notice the Shuffle also has a clip, which seems to be indicated by the rubber casing. Its possible the 3.5mm headphone jack data stream is simply too slow for fast data transfers or too low power to charge what would be a larger battery. Also, maybe they needed some sort of on-screen display for built-in Nike+ receiver, something Ive been wanting for a couple years now, though SpamSandwich had a similar yet different wireless protocol theory, that it might be a larger Shuffle for bluetooth components and subsequent battery for BT headphones.

Of the two, Id think going for a larger SuperShuffle makes more sense than a smaller Nano. Apple likes to go smaller, but they typically only do it when they can at least keep the current usability and features in tacked. This NinnyNano doesnt maintain the display size for viewing or the ability to use it as a video camera.

I can see this being a *new* iPod in the line up with hybrid-features, but not a merger of the two lines, but I favor it being on the Shuffle side of things.

Something else folks aren't thinking about is that if it has an IPod dock connector, and it has a touch screen of any kind, then it can both have apps (of some kind), and also connect to other devices.

A tiny 2" "controller" that plugs into other gear and gives you a few buttons to control it, or a display of what the doohicky you plugged into is doing, has a great deal of possibilities for device integration moving forward.

Most of Apple's hardware partners in this regard are dullards that haven't had a cool idea for years, but the *possibilities* are still fantastic for all the iOS devices.

Most of Apple's hardware partners in this regard are dullards that haven't had a cool idea for years, but the *possibilities* are still fantastic for all the iOS devices.

Besides the Nike+. Granted, apple can add the receiver inside the nano, and that would be the only way to have controls of the nano via dock. But it'd have to work so a runner could still use their own headphones. I'd say 1 out of 10 sets of headphones will stay in my ears while running.

Quote:

The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

My wild guess is that the small square screen is for the new shuffle. The current shuffle isn't selling well, and Apple might want to turn it into a fancier device with a touch-screen to boost sales. It would show a "virtual click wheel" that appears when the user touches the screen without swiping.

So what about the nano? My wild guess is that it will get a bigger touch-sensitive screen, that the separate click wheel will be replaced by the same "virtual click wheel" used on the shuffle, and that the screen will get larger. Both the new shuffle and nano would run an improved version of iPod OS, not iOS. (Maybe the nano could get iOS next year...)

The iPod touch will have almost all the features of the iPhone 4, except for the phone itself, and maybe no camera flash and a different case design. That means it'll get FaceTime and the A4 processor.

My thoughts:
-A virtual click wheel makes no sense, especially on such a small screen. Navigation would be next to impossible with a virtual click wheel consuming all the screen real estate. There are better ways for navigating a small touchscreen.
-A shuffle that allows for more than shuffling isn't true to its name (admittedly the current one can also play playlists).
-Why shouldn't Apples smallest iPod be called the nano?
-Why would Apple take the current form of the nano and make an inferior touch UI (virtual click wheel and all) when they have iOS?

My predictions:
-This new iPod will be called the nano, why fight all the rumors and say it will be the shuffle when the nano makes more sense anyway?
-The shuffle will lose its reason to exist and will either be discounted or discontinued.
-The iPod touch will gain many of the things the nano had. The video camera is obvious, but even the FM radio is quite possible.
-The iPod Touch will eventually be available in different sizes. Since we haven't seen case leaks for this, it might not happen this time, but I wouldn't be surprised to see three sizes (the current size, plus one larger and one smaller) in the future (possibly sharing the same resolution). The smaller one would be a little bigger than the current nano, replacing it at that form factor and price point.

PS: The leaked iPod touch cases have a spot for a flash, so I would think a flash is probable.

Besides the Nike+. Granted, apple can add the receiver inside the nano, and that would be the only way to have controls of the nano via dock. But it'd have to work so a runner could still use their own headphones. I'd say 1 out of 10 sets of headphones will stay in my ears while running.

Yea, touch screens are not the best for running. I have a running playlist that I update before I go on a run, so that I only get the songs I want during that run and I don't have to fiddle with the controls. Clickwheels are much better for running, though they still jump around if you try to increase the volume with your sweaty hands.